Featured Post

Sunday, February 22, 2015

The Con Game Sold Along With Ontario's Child Sex-Grooming Curriculum

Do you think an eight year old, who isn't yet affected by the hormones that would make sexual attraction comprehensible to him or her, needs to spend time in school learning about sexual attraction?

But let's go a little younger. Assuming they don't spend a lot of time around Liberal MPPs or senior bureaucrats, does your six year old need to learn about sexual consent, beyond shouting "help!," if approached that way by an adult?

Does your 11 year-old need to learn about vaginal lubrication and your 12 year old about anal sex?

If your answer to the above is "no," then that makes you a party to "hysteria, hypocrisy and hyperbole." At least it does according to Toronto Star columnist Martin Regg Cohn, who has gone into overdrive to defend Kathleen Wynne's reintroduction of the Ben Levin Child Grooming Curriculum to Ontario Public Schools.

The original architect of the curriculum is Kathleen Wynne's personally selected Deputy Education Minister, Ben Levin, who according to his lawyer will be pleading guilty next month to criminal offenses of which he stands charged related to the sexual exploitation of young children.

Yeah. That's the guy who shaped the curriculum. But if you're concerned or object, you're just a prudish old "social conservative," according to Cohn. Except most of us aren't. If you knew me, you'd know how very wrong Cohn is about that in my case.

The objection to the curriculum most of its critics have isn't the content, but the ages of the children to which it is being introduced. You don't have to be a genius to understand that introducing graphic sexual material to young, pre-pubescent children is wrong.

I think, in their hearts, Wynne, Cohn, and the Liberals also know that, and know that most parents in Ontario know that. Which is why when talking about the sexual material in which they want to wrap your children, they use school grades, and rarely the children's ages.

Because when most people understand at how young an age our provincial government wants to sexualize children, they get upset.

According to Cohn, the Levin Child-Grooming curriculum needs to be in schools and taught to little kids because, "children deserve to learn it all in classrooms, not be lured in lurid chat rooms."

Is that the choice? It's either one or the other?What a crock of garbage.
Children are going to learn about sex in a variety of ways. In school, from their parents, from their peers, and from information they get from books and the Internet.

I don't know if Wynne and Cohn are sincere idiots or sleazy snake-oil sellers by pushing the argument that masses of kids are going to become dangerously misinformed by Internet chat rooms and web sites.

Because guess what? If a kid is curious about sex and sophisticated enough to be on the Internet, then it's logical to assume they're capable and likely to go to something like wikipedia for it.

According to Cohn, anyone expressing these concerns is just a "right-wing opposition opportunist."

Really?

Have I missed something or are children not actually more knowledgeable about sex than they used to be? Teenage pregnancy rates have declined by a full 51.5% in Ontario between 1995 and 2005.That's the highest rate of decline in all Canada (except Yukon, which was only 0.3% better) and it pretty much refutes everything Kathleen Wynne is trying to con Ontarians into believing about Ontario's kids "falling behind" in Sex Ed during those years.

It's not the public, it's the media and a few activists that become hysterical every time a kid kills themself, and there is an outcry about "cyberbullying." As tragic as each teen suicide is, the suicide rates in Canada have been consistent for years. The most important factor in teen suicide to remember is thatstudies indicate more than 90 percent of suicide victims have a diagnosable psychiatric illness. So if Kathleen Wynne really cared about the health of Ontario's school kids, shouldn't changes in the curriculum focus on mental health, and not sex?

But Wynne and Cohn aren't idiots. They have an agenda. They both tell us that the new curriculum has been shaped by experts.

Turning young children into sexual beings is something they very much want to accomplish in order to further their other ideological goals. Those of normalizing the ideas of gender fluidity, the unscientific idea that biology has absolutely nothing to do with behavior, that children should not think of themselves as individuals, but as part of racial collectives. And it does get worse.

I can't believe you wrote this: "Ben Levin whom, according to his lawyer, will be pleading guilty next month to criminal offenses." It should, of course, be ", who" (subjective case, comma before, not after). Everything else seems PERFECT though!

I'm with you on that Skippy, and you'd do a better job managing the provincial budget than the current government.

But at least wait until kids were a year into puberty to give them that password.

The thing is, any kid who wants to look at online porn has already figured out how. But having the government pushing it on them when they're so young, they don't even have an urge to look, is not really conducive to healthy development.

I'd be prepared to give it the OK if all sex ed texts used nude photos of Liberal provincial cabinet members as the models, since that would probably gross kids out and make them want to be celibate well into their late teens.

But of course, I joke - that would do far too much permanent psychological damage to the poor tykes.